Patients’ and therapists’ perspective of integrating home and family work roles into rehabilitation following distal radius fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore distal radius fracture (DRF) patients' and hand therapist/occupational therapist/physiotherapists' perceptions of integrating home and family work roles (HFWR) into rehabilitation. METHODS: Eighteen patients and eleven therapists completed a semi-structured telephone interview three months after DRF. Reflexive thematic analysis of the interviews and triangulation of patients' and therapists' themes was performed. RESULTS: The patient interview yielded five themes: the experience of rehabilitation; predetermined expectations of rehabilitation; incorporating HFWR into therapy sessions; varying patient needs for addressing HFWR; and determination to return to valued activities drives behavioral choices. The therapists' interview yielded five themes: The challenges in integrating HFWR into rehabilitation; HFWR addressed when brought up by a patient; working context and referral sources influence the rehabilitation plan; rehabilitation is not explicitly tailored according to sex and gender; and utilizing HFWR as a rehabilitation strategy is perceived beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have predetermined rehabilitation expectations primarily focused on mobility and strengthening exercises. Therapists and patients agree that adapting home and family work roles is beneficial but was not a major focus for either therapists' or patients' expectations during therapy. An unfavourable environment, patient budget constraints, and limited time were identified as challenges to integrating family roles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".